Major Surface Transportation Issues
in the 108th CongressFor the first time in history, the separate laws that
govern aviation, rail and highways all come up for renewal during
the current congressional session. Of the three pending reauthorizations,
the $30 billion-plus per year surface transportation program affects
the most congressional districts and hence is a subject of intense
interest to virtually every congressional lawmaker. That is why
the upcoming reauthorization of this program was the topic of
a special session at a Williamsburg VA seminar for newly elected
Members of Congress, sponsored by the Congressional Research Service.
The key issues that will confront the lawmakers were discussed
by a team consisting of John W. Fischer, CRS, Jack Basso, AASHTO,
and your editor. A brief summary of their presentations follows.

The Administration's Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget RequestThe President's budget request for fiscal year
2004 was unveiled on February 3. Consistent with the Administration's
resolve to impose a domestic spending discipline across the board,
the $54.3 billion transportation budget request represents only
a six percent increase ($2.9 billion) over the President's
FY 2003 request. The budget request provides some advance hints
of the administration's thinking concerning the reauthorization
of the federal-aid surface transportation program.

Fiscal Year 2004 represents the first year of the new six-year
surface transportation authorization cycle. The Administration's
proposed FY 2004 funding of $30.2 billion is "a far better
starting point than that of last year," commented John Horsley,
Executive Director of AASHTO. But it is still below AASHTO's
recommended baseline level of $34 billion (which AASHTO would
like to see rise to "at least" $45 billion by the
end of the next authorization cycle). House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) pointedly noted
that the nation's transportation infrastructure needs as
reported in US DOT's Conditions and Performance Report would
require twice the funding levels proposed in the Administration's
budget. Judging from the congressional reaction, Congress is likely
to set more generous funding levels.

The President's FY 2004 budget proposal requests $7.226 billion
for transit-related programs, the same amount as in the FY 2003
budget request, but a 7 percent increase over the FY 2002 funding
level. However, the proposal is below the amount recommended by
the transit industry which has called for continued growth of
the federal transit program at 12 percent annually, from a level
of $7.2 billion in FY 2003 to $14.3 billion in FY 2009. The American
Public Transportation Association (APTA) expressed disappointment
with the proposed budget and with the Administration's proposal
to decrease the federal match for New Starts projects from 80
percent to 50 percent. "We cannot sit quietly and accept
the FY 2004 proposed number as the right number, or even as an
adequate number," the American Public Transportation Association
editorialized in its weekly publication, Passenger Transport.HOT Networks: An Idea Whose Time May Have
Come1
HOV lanes could be transformed into a more effective component
of the urban transportation system by turning them into premium
lanes that would serve as uncongested guideways for express buses,
while providing a faster and more reliable travel option to toll-paying
individual motorists. So argue the authors of a new report by
the Reason Public Policy Institute unveiled at a recent press
conference that included representatives of the American Automobile
Association, Environmental Defense and the Progressive Policy
Institute. In effect, the proposal marries two promising transportation
innovations: high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes and Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT). 1 Robert W. Poole, Jr. and C. Kenneth
Orski, Hot Networks: A New Plan for Congestion Relief and
Better Transit, RPPI Policy Study 305, February 2003 (The
full text of this Brief can be found in "From the Editor")

Promoting an "Operations Mindset":
Why Has There Been So Little Progress? Despite a three-year "National Dialogue on Transportation
Operations," few state and local operating agencies have
embraced the idea of making highway operations their core mission
or improving highway system performance as their primary goal.
Implementing regional collaboration and coordination of transportation
operations has likewise been slow. The Transportation Research
Board held a special session at its Annual Meeting in January
to seek a better understanding of the reasons for this disappointing
lack of progress.

London's
Big Gamble
The controversial and much debated plan to impose a congestion
charge on drivers who enter an eight-square mile area of central
London took effect on February 17. Some 700 video cameras distributed
at entry points and throughout the congestion zone scan license
plates of vehicles that travel within the zone on weekdays between
7 am and 6:30 pm. This information is matched each night against
a database of drivers who have paid the charge. Motorists can
pay the daily £5 ($8) fee by phone, on line, or at designated
sales points. Failure to pay by 10 pm on the day of the trip triggers
a progressively higher fine which reaches £120 ($192) if
the charge remains unpaid after 28 days. Residents living within
the central zone receive a 90% discount and disabled drivers,
taxis and emergency service vehicles are exempt from the charge
altogether.

The scheme is intended to cut down on chronic traffic congestion
in central London (and is expected to generate some £130
million/year for public transport improvements). Some 250,000
cars typically enter Central London every weekday. Authorities
hope the charge will reduce this number by 10-15 percent. While
congestion charges have been implemented successfully in Singapore
and three Norwegian cities (Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim), no program
has ever been attempted on this large a scale in a city with such
complex travel patterns.

We have asked two veteran students of congestion pricing to send
us their observations and reflections about London's big
gamble. They are David Bayliss, former Chief Transport Planner
for the Greater London Council and Director of Planning for London
Transport, and the well-known transport economist and author of
"Roads in a Market Economy", Gabriel Roth (who happened
to be visiting London at the time). While their reports of the
initial launch are generally positive, it will be weeks if not
months before the full impact of this ambitious scheme on traffic
levels, travel patterns and center city economic activity is known.